<Are Subsidies to Oil Companies Ever Justified?The Oil DrumOf Technology and the Future>
<DrumBeat: April 23, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: April 25, 2007>

155 comments on DrumBeat: April 24, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 11:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Oh, I agree. People are not rational when it comes to safety. They worry about their cars being crushed by an SUV, or about pesticides on apples. Then they drive to McDonalds without wearing a seatbelt, while smoking a cigarette.

That said...if the issue is 18-wheelers, you're probably in even more danger in a Corolla or Prius than you are in an Expedition. It's the difference between the weights of the vehicle that counts.

Maybe there is an advantage to a "nimbler" vehicle, but face, it, any "green" car is not going to be nimble. Nimble = high power per weight, which is the opposite of efficient.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on April 24, 2007 - 12:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Having survived a double collision with an 18 wheeler at highway speeds in a VW Scirocco (wt. ~2,000 lbs), I disagree.

What saved me was the stiffness to weight ratio.

Trucker fell asleep @ the wheel and "merged" into my front door. The car bounced and he hit it again (rear) and then I went into a wild spin.

My injuries were from the seat belt (internal bleeding) and a concussion from the sudden acceleration (explains some of my current behavior :-) And some light scratches from flying glass.

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 12:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sounds like what saved you is that it was a sideswipe, not head-on collision.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on April 24, 2007 - 12:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The second collision collapsed the rear bumper & hatchback.

The VW bounced both times rather than a major structural collapse. More weight, less stiffness = no bounce; just collapse.

I would have died in a Hummer.

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 12:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The second collision collapsed the rear bumper & hatchback.

And may have been designed that way. "Crumples zones" are part of passenger vehicle design.

That is one thing people don't consider about SUVs and minivans. Since they are considered light trucks, they are not required to meet the same safety standards that cars are. Also, roads are not designed for them. A high vehicle like an SUV or minivan will vault right over guardrail designed for cars.

However, both SUVs and roads have become a lot safer, simply because they are so popular. Guardrail has been redesigned with SUVs in mind, and SUVs and minivans are increasingly being held to car safety standards.

But if you're driving an older SUV, or on a road that hasn't been rehabbed recently, you are facing hazards car drivers are not.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
greenish on April 24, 2007 - 7:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Simpsons episode "Screaming Yellow Honkers"

Marge: Good Lord. How am I supposed to get in this beast?
[opens the door. A mechanized stepladder unfolds from
the doorsill] Hmm. Well, that's a nice feature. [gets
in]
Not much headroom, though. [the sunroof opens, allowing
her hair to spring out] Ooh! Well, I guess I can drive
it for a little while.
[the patter of little feet is heard, and then the kids
jump into the back seat]
Lisa: But mom, I read that sport-utility vehicles are more
likely to be in fatal accidents.
Bart: Fatal to the people in the other car. Let's roll.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 8:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

LOL!

It's twue, it's twue!

SUVs did have a higher rate of fatalities because they were prone to rollovers, with their high center of gravity. But once that became an issue, the manufacturers fixed it.

Fatal to the people in the other car is also true. Particularly "t-bone" collisions. The SUV is so high it comes in over the side-door reinforcement of a car. People get killed even when they are wearing their seatbelts in fairly mild collisions.

They are trying to fix that by changing the design of car doors, but of course, that doesn't do anything for all the older cars on the road.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on April 24, 2007 - 10:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

SUVs did have a higher rate of fatalities because they were prone to rollovers, with their high center of gravity. But once that became an issue, the manufacturers fixed it.

You can't fix physics ;) Active rollover control uses the braking system to attempt to reign in a vehicle that's out of control, but it ain't magic. The types of circumstance where SUVs tend to rollover are where they lose traction and then suddenly regain it while traveling sideways.

Also, Alan is correct above. Race cars are the perfect example of this in that you can have ~1200lb machines (indy, irl, F1) hitting walls at 180mph and the driver steps out with only minor injuries. Similar situation for nascar, ~3000lb machines, with wall and car on car action that would pancake and kill anyone in any 3000lb road car. The biggest problems with road cars are weak restraints and "cabin intrusion." Weak restraints allow you to flop around in the car and bash your head and body on stuff. "Cabin intrusion" is what everyone's always worried about - that is, hitting something, and the car smushing and coming into the passenger compartment. If people were really concerned about safety they'd wear helmets, it would cut deaths in half if not more.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on April 24, 2007 - 11:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The way to fix it is to force the SUVs to have bumpers at the same height as everything else.  If this means they have to have disproportionately low bumpers and people don't like the look, so much the better.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oregon7 on April 25, 2007 - 11:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

OK folks, what's this constant attack on SUVs? Surely the major problem preventing our investment in energy alternatives is the low price of oil, and surely SUV drivers are doing us all a favor by burning through the stuff faster, and thus bringing us to the point where it will be economical to invest in alternatives sooner.

Now, you want to say that we need all the time that we can get? But as long as the price is low, do you really believe that private investors or the governments will move toward alternatives?

So, while I bike to work every day, let's all praise the SUVs which are burning through the fuel, and thus through the illusions, that lie a the base of our current economy, and hastening the arrival of economic realities that will make more forward looking investments and policies possible.

Also, from a climate change perspective, we need high fuel prices sooner... not later, so again, let's all praise SUV owners, and in fact let's require all cars to be constructed with heavy armor plating for passenger protection of course... but more importantly to decrease gas mileage and hasten the end of the oil age.

You think I'm kidding?

I'm not sure. I might not be.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on April 24, 2007 - 3:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Then they drive to McDonalds without wearing a seatbelt, while smoking a cigarette.

What the 'Homo-Americus' branch of the human race is evolving to?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.